S. Ambilikumar @ Ambili v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **FRIDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 1324 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.44/2024 OF Naruvamoodu Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **S. AMBILIKUMAR @ AMBILI, AGED 59 YEARS S/O SIVASANKARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT PRIYA NIVAS, ARAVILAKAM, NADUKKADU, NARUVAMOODU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695528** **BY ADVS. V.N.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR G.ARUN G.VARUN JOY C. PAUL AVINASH K.KRISHNAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NARUVAMOODU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695528** **SR PP SMT SEETHA S** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **23.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **BAIL APPL. NO. 1324 OF 2024** **2** ## **O R D E R** This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the sole accused in Crime No.44/2024 of the Naruvammoodu Police Station, registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs 294(b), 447, 323, 506(ii) and 308 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 16.01.2024. 2. The crux of the prosecution case is that: on 15.01.2024, at around 8.30 p.m., the accused trespassed into the courtyard of the house of the de facto complainant and by using a chopper he attacked the de facto complainant. As the de facto complainant warded off the attack, his life was saved, but he suffered a deep injury on his middle finger. Thereafter, the accused stamped the de facto complainant on his back. When his mother also attempted to intervene, the accused **BAIL APPL. NO. 1324 OF 2024** **3** assaulted her. The de facto complainant's mother and brother all sustained injuries in the attack. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.V.N.Gopalakrishnan Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Seetha. S., the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. The case has been falsely registered against the petitioner. A reading of Annexure A1 FIR would substantiate that the offences alleged against the petitioner, particularly Section 308 will not stand attracted to the facts of the case. The said offence has been incorporated only to deny bail to the petitioner. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 16.01.2024, the investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected. The **BAIL APPL. NO. 1324 OF 2024** **4** petitioner's further detention is not necessary. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She made available the Accident Register-Cum-Would Certificate of the two injured to substantiate the nature of injuries sustained by them. She contended that the investigation in the case is in progress. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 38 days, the investigation in the case is complete, recovery has been effected and the petitioner is a person without any criminal antecedents. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. In **Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, [2012 1 SCC 40]** , the Honourable Supreme Court has categorically held that the fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence until a person is found guilty. Any **BAIL APPL. NO. 1324 OF 2024** **5** imprisonment prior to conviction is to be considered as a punitive and it would be improper on the part of the Court to refuse bail solely on the ground of former conduct. 7. In **Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., [(2018) 3 SCC 22]** the Honourable Supreme Court observed that grant of bail is a rule and putting a person in jail is an exception. Even though the grant of bail is entirely the discretion of the court, it has to be evaluated based on the facts and circumstances of each case and the discretion has to be exercised in a judicious and compassionate manner. 8. in **State of Kerala v.** Subsequently, **Raneef, [(2011) 1 SCC 784]** , the Honourable Supreme Court has again held that undertrial prisoners detained in jail for indefinite periods, without any sufficient reason or due to the delay in concluding the trial, will tantamount to ## **BAIL APPL. NO. 1324 OF 2024** **6** infringement of their right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 9. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the materials placed on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar, particularly after analysing the Accident Register-Cum-Wound Certificate of the two injured, which does not show that the injured had suffered any grievous injuries as alleged by the prosecution, that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last 38 days, that the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected, I am of the definite view that the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty **BAIL APPL. NO. 1324 OF 2024** **7** Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to the following conditions: - (i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m for a period of one month or till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier. He shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever; (iii) The petitioner shall not commit any **BAIL APPL. NO. 1324 OF 2024** **8** ## offence while he is on bail; (iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond; (v) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law. (vi) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below. (vii) Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, **BAIL APPL. NO. 1324 OF 2024** **9** given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].** **Sd/-C.S.DIAS(J) JUDGE** lsn